Response

I recently got two responses to my post entitled "Broke", and I want to share both their feedback and my new thoughts on the subject.

The first response talked about intrinsic motivation and how it can create a better environment if people are doing things because they want to do them. The second response reminded me that if people are being benevolent, then they should be willing to either repay you for your service or help you if you have insufficient funds. It also brought up that my quote "without competition there is no motivation" in the context of money is incorrect.

I agree with both of them (to an extent). I was being narrow-minded in my original post, completely forgetting about intrinsic motivation. It's true that people should be motivated to do things because they want to do things, which makes a happier existence for everyone. In this way, we could greatly benefit from the practice of benevolence. I also accidentally assumed in "Broke" that nobody else would be willing to repay you for your service or lend you money, but if everyone is practicing benevolence, than this should be custom for everyone.

But I still stand by the fact that competition does motivate people to succeed. I think what makes being recognized (whether by a teacher, a college, a state, a country, or the entire world) so satisfying is that one had to achieve lengths greater than everyone else involved to be successful. For example, if you were auditioning for a role in the play, it wouldn't be nearly as exciting to get the role if nobody else had tried out for it. Also, if nobody else had tried out, there would be no reason to impress the casting director because you know you're going to get the part anyways. I believe we thrive off of competition because it makes us want to be better and do better, which inevitably makes us grow.

Broke

As has been repeated many times, Confucius wants people to perfect benevolence, meaning to be benevolent for benevolence's sake. Imagine a world in which everyone was open to giving with no interest in receiving anything back.

As a musician, I know that if I were to sing without expecting payment, I would be broke my entire life. There would be no fame in the entertainment industry, therefore killing culture and destroying any passion to perform.

If I were a teacher, I wouldn't apply for a job because that would mean I want to teach for money. I would teach anyone for free and I would be broke my entire life.

If I were an athlete, I wouldn't ask to be paid, and I would be broke my entire life.

The common thread: being broke.

Benevolence is a good idea to live by, but without competition there is no motivation and no profit. Our world would crumble.

What is the Universe?

Haberman and Stevenson’s diction is misleading. In saying that “morality is part of the very fabric of the universe”, what do they mean by the word “universe”?

The universe could simply be the earth, the planets, the moon, the sun, and the stars. Since the idea that planets rotate around the sun wasn't discovered until the 1600's and Confucianism began around 500 BC, it can be assumed that Confucius never thought that morality had anything to do with the course of the universe.

The term could also be very broad, including everything in existence. However, Confucianism has a foundation in the teaching and perfecting of human kind, which is a very humanistic trait. The main parts of Confucianism are the individual's perfection of benevolence and the Decree of Heaven. It seems that Confucius only really cares about human existence and the higher power of Heaven, which is most likely the definition of the universe that Haberman and Stevenson mean in their quote.

The physical universe and everything in existence aren't significant in Confucianism, but humans and the Decree of Heaven are what create Confucius' so-called "universe".

Confucianism Conformism?

Confucius wants everyone to practice benevolence, but is submitting to Confucius’ idea of benevolence blindly conforming to an ideal that might or might not bring you to peace with the Decree of Heaven?

What reason would a person have to give their life to perfecting benevolence if there is no end goal involved? The end goal for people who believe in Confucianism is Heaven. By practicing altruism, one will live a happy life and be at peace with the Decree of Heaven.

The problem is that there is no proof that being good will send you to Heaven after you die. Confucius gives no reason to trust him and his idea of the Decree of Heaven. Following Confucius with so little proof and knowledge is similar to following a bee to the hive. The bee is leading you to honey, but you are unsure if you're going to get honey or a face full of bee stings. Christianity has the Bible as proof, Judaism has the Torah, and Hinduism has the Upanishads (and others) - what does Confucius have other than a book of his own quotes? While Confucius' ideas mean well, he has no justification, and therefore following him is blindly conforming to the philosophy of a man that doesn't know what he's talking about.

Gravity

Apparently the theory that there is a force, called gravity, inside of everything that consists of matter which pulls other objects of matter towards it is not certain enough for scientists. I understand that every theory is up for questioning, but gravity is in the same realm as any other force. As I pick up my backpack, I am exerting an unseen force on the backpack. For scientists to complain about the fact that gravity is an unseen force, therefore unreliable, and not mention other forces is ridiculous. Gravity is the most obvious force there is - there is no mistaking it. We wouldn't be alive if there wasn't gravity.

The problem that scientists encounter is that gravity is acting on objects in a vacuum. I don't understand why the fact that it's in a vacuum matters. The moon and the earth are still objects of matter, and therefore they will be attracted towards each other. There is no other possible explanation for planets orbiting around the sun. It makes perfect sense, so I don't understand why scientists have to come up with another complicated and nonsensical explanation for it.

Just a Thought

We spend so much time trying to figure ourselves out. Why do we act in certain ways? Why do we do the things we do?

But why don't we know? I am who I am, so shouldn't I know what that is? Why can't I decipher my own thoughts and actions? Why can't my brain access the information that I need to understand who I am?

I don't get it.

Idealism

How does Renee Descartes' theory "I think, therefore I am" relate to idealism? I thought idealism was about ideals, and the difference between an idealist and a realist was that the first believes in an ideal life while the latter believes that there isn't more than what is already there, what is real. I figured it was the difference between optimism and pessimism.

Idealism is not about ideals, it is about ideas, or thinking. It's a skeptical philosophy that denies the existence of anything but our own thoughts. This is exactly what Renee Descartes' theory is about. But I wonder why the term for this philosophy is "idealism" when it is not an ideal way of thinking.

Realism is not a pessimistic philosophy, but rather a more optimistic view on life. It promotes that we do know there is a world outside our thoughts, that reality exists. Realism is a title that makes more sense, due to the idea that it advocates reality. However, it can still be confused with the term "realistic", which refers to practicality and has a negative connotation.

What Struck Me About the Philosophy Toolkit

Under the General Philosophical Terms section in the toolkit, atheism and theism are defined as "(mostly) metaphysical claims, the one denying and the other affirming the existence of God" and agnosticism is defined as "the (mostly) epistemological claim that the question is undecidable on the basis of present evidence".

At first I was wondering why religious terms would be categorized as metaphysical claims because metaphysics is "the study of what there is and how it works", which seems more logical and scientific. I didn't think that theology was a part of metaphysics. However, I came to realize that religion is one of the many ways people rationalize how the world works. Other people think that divinity is not involved with workings of the world. Maybe we're all on a path to Nirvana and in order to get there we have to have good karma. There are many possible theological explanations for the world, so atheism and theism are most certainly metaphysical claims.

I had the opposite issue with agnosticism and epistemology. Epistemology is "the study of the nature, scope, and limits of knowledge or understanding", intimating a more emotional way of thinking. Since agnosticism has a lot to do with evidence, or the lack thereof, I figured it was more logical, like metaphysics. But the lack of evidence is actually where emotion starts to take action because agnosticism is a skeptical way of thinking. Since nothing is certain, we have to trust our own beliefs. Epistemology deals with the possibility that we lack any true knowledge, making agnosticism an important aspect of epistemology.

Who Am I?

Hello!

I am Katie Emerson, a freshman at MCLA, studying fine and performing arts (with a concentration in music), but interested in much more. I'm from the happy town of Holliston, MA, where I achieved many of my musical goals and made all of my closest friends. Lately I've been doing a lot of graphic design, including the design of business cards, posters, and websites (like this blog!), and I'm finding it to be a major passion of mine. It seems to bring together a lot of my talents, including my knack for math! I certainly hope to continue graphic design in the future.

As for hobbies, I greatly enjoy bike-riding, photography, and creative writing. Bands that I like include The Killers, Mumford and Sons, Pink Floyd, Muse, and The Civil Wars. Robin Hood is a passion of mine. Edgar Allan Poe, Roald Dahl, S.E. Hinton, and William Shakespeare are some of my favorite authors. I highly recommend reading "Catch 22" by Joseph Heller and "Behind the Scenes at the Museum" by Kate Atkinson because the content is intelligent, witty, and intense.

I like making goals for myself, so I'll mention a few in this post. First and foremost, I want to be happy. All of my other goals help compose my personal definition of happiness. My goal for this class is to learn as much as I possibly can, not just from the professor and the text, but from the students because they have different perspectives than I do. Another goal I have is to learn how to ice skate because it seems to be a lot of fun. After all, having fun is certainly a key to being happy!

~Katie